More handpicked essays just for you.
Similarities between Hobbes & Locke political philosophy
Compare and contrast political thoughts of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes
Compare and contrast political thoughts of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are well-known political philosophers and social contract theorists. Social Contract Theory is, “the hypothesis that one’s moral obligations are dependent upon an implicit agreement between individuals to form a society.” (IEP, Friend). Both Hobbes and Locke are primarily known for their works concerning political philosophy, namely Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Two Treatise of Government. Both works contain a different view of a State of Nature and lay out social contracts designed to neutralize the chaos inherent in that state. Though Hobbes and Locke have a different understanding of the State of Nature, they share similar social contracts, except with regards to representation and the role of the government through the State of Nature.
Hobbes and Locke have similar social contracts because in both of their social contract theories, they posit that the population in their respective states of nature will choose to relinquish a certain amount of their liberty for a guarantee of security. Both theorists agree that this is inevitable because the populations will realize that the only way to live a more fulfilled life is to enter into a social contract. Though at first glance, their social contracts may appear to be radically different, upon closer inspection, their underlying themes are undeniably similar. For instance, they both believe that the State of Nature is, to some extent, chaotic, and that entering into a social contract is a rational thing to do and a necessity for society to flourish. Hobbes says, “From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commanded to endeavor peace, is derived this second law: that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and d...
... middle of paper ...
...peace. The primary differences in the social contracts of both Hobbes and Locke, therefore, stem directly from their radically opposed viewpoints on mankind’s State of Nature.
Clearly, though both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke share similar social contracts, with regards to representation and the role of the government, their views are radically different, stemming from their sharply contrasting views on the State of Nature. Although they had radically opposing viewpoints when it came to the role of government, both Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Two Treatise of Government were instrumental references in the forming the American government and political spectrum. Predictably, Hobbes’ extremely cynical-in-a-PTSD views on the State of Nature (and thus government) were less regarded, in favor of Locke’s more moderate views on government and towards humanity in general.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have authored two works that have had a significant impact on political philosophy. In the “Leviathan” by Hobbes and “Two Treatises of Government” by Locke, the primary focus was to analyze human nature to determine the most suitable type of government for humankind. They will have confounding results. Hobbes concluded that an unlimited sovereign is the only option, and would offer the most for the people, while for Locke such an idea was without merit. He believed that the government should be limited, ruling under the law, with divided powers, and with continued support from its citizens. With this paper I will argue that Locke had a more realistic approach to identifying the human characteristics that organize people into societies, and is effective in persuading us that a limited government is the best government.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state. Their theories are both psychologically insightful, but in nature, they are drastically different. Although they lived in the same timeframe, their ideas were derived from different events happening during this time. Hobbes drew his ideas on man from observation, during a time of civil strife in Europe during the 1640's and 1650's.
Social contract adheres to the concept that in pre-societal terms man relied on the state of nature: life with no government and no regulation. Interpretations of state of nature from English Philosopher Thomas Hobbes and that of French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau differ on the basis of development and operation of the social contract. Hobbes proposed that man lived in fear and self-interest to the point that it was in human nature to seek security and self-protection to which he [man] enters a social contract. While Rousseau argues that man’s individualism, freedom, and equality is diluted through the formation of modern civilization and is “forced to be free” (p.46). How social contract operates from perspective of Hobbes and Rousseau
In order to fully grasp Hobbes' theory of Social Contract, one must first become familiar with his basic premises of "The State of Nature." In this state each individual is inherently in a perpetual state of war, due to several given reasons. Hobbes assumes that "Nature hath made men…equall." (Hobbes 183) Also, that in this state of war all men exemplify purely egoistic behavior, striving to do whatever possible to maximize their own utility, even if it requires murdering another. In addition to these conditions, in the state of nature, there exists a state of natural scarcity, in which, a finite amount of goods, possessions, property, "cattell," "wives," whatever, exist to satisfy man's infinite wants. "And therefore if any two men desire the same thing…they become enemies and…endeavour to destroy or subdue one an other." (Hobbes 184) Hence, creating a constant state of war.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had some similarities in their beliefs about human nature. They both claimed that humans would always be willing to give up some of their freedom or rights to have security and feel safe. When John Locke says “The enjoyment of rights in the state of nature is unsafe and insecure. Hence, each man joins in society with others to preserve life, liberty, and property.” it is showing that he thinks the state of nature is unsafe, so people give
Although Hobbes and Locke agree that all people are equal, they perceive natural rights and human nature in very different ways. Hobbes believed that people innately love liberty and dominion over others and that men fight due to three “principal causes”: “competition,” which results in men invading for “gain;” “insecurity,” which makes men invade for “safety;” and “glory,” which makes men invade for “reputation.” He states that men are natural...
Hobbes and Locke argued that people mainly formed a state for different reasons according to their ideology. Hobbes mentioned that humans only formed a state for their mere self interest to protect themselves from the wrath of others. In contrast Locke had a more positive perspective that individuals believed it was moral to form a state to protect their natural rights and would not be deprived from their rights. In Leviathan, Hobbes asserts, "Conferre all of their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all of their Wills, by plurality of voices," (Locke, 95). Comparing the statement of Hobbes with Locke is the following, “It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people," (Locke, 70). Both theories on the sovereign power relates to the human nature. For example Hobbes’s believes that humans need a strong authority to protect citizens from each other and outside forces, which is why the sovereign has absolute power. Critiquing Locke 's perspective he mentions that the people in state of nature live in peace and tranquility amongst each other setting moral limits without having a sovereign (central
Hobbes and Locke’s each have different ideologies of man’s state of nature that develops their ideal form of government. They do however have similar ideas, such as how man is born with a perfect state of equality that is before any form of government and social contract. Scarcity of goods ultimately leads to Hobbes and Locke’s different states of nature that shapes their two different ideal governments because Hobbes believes that scarcity of goods will bring about a constant state of war, competition, and greed of man that cannot be controlled without a absolute sovereign as government while Locke believes that with reasoning and a unified government, man will succeed in self preservation of himself and others.
Thomas Hobbes is now broadly viewed as one of a smaller group of truly extraordinary political thinkers, whose major work was the Leviathan rivals in meaning the political writings of Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls. Hobbes is most known for his for his early and elaborate development of what has come to be known as “social contract theory”, the method of justifying political principles or arrangements by appeal to the agreement that would be made among suitably situated rational, free, and equal persons. He is most famous for using his theory on the social contract to submit that human beings should submit to an absolute—undivided and unlimited—sovereign power (Lloyd, 2014) Hobbes wanted to ascertain the clear values for the construction of a civil organization that would not be subject to destruction from within. Hobbes maintains the ideology that people should look at their government as having absolute authority, while arguing that the government has absolute power he reserves the idea that we have the liberty of disobeying some of our government's instructions. He argues that subjects retain a
In many ways Hobbes and Locke’s conclusions on man and society create a polarizing argument when held in comparison to each other. For instance the two make wildly conflicting assertions concerning mankind’s capacity to foster and achieve organized society. Hobbes asserts humans cannot be trusted to govern themselves lest they fall into war and chaos; Locke, on the other hand concludes almost the exact opposite. Despite the polarity in each man’s train of thought, both philosophies share a common ancestor: a state defined by total equality where no human is superior or holds dominance over another. Although this is the base of both theories, it is the only similarity between the two. This commonality can be illustrated when tracing each argument deductively from their conclusions, the comparison reveals that the heaviest and most base opposition in each mans philosophy is his assertions regarding the nature of human beings.
2. What is the difference between Hobbes’ and Locke’s conception of the state of nature, and how does it affect each theorist’s version of the social contract?
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.
Hobbes and Locke’s Ideas of government reflects subjects that have been put in place, rejected many times, or are still in consideration. The idea to allow the government to have access to our text messages, our emails, and our phone calls to prevent crime and terrorism would be an example of Hobbes idea of government as having an absolute ruler with unlimited power would do whatever is necessary to prevent chaos. But in todays society Locke’s idea of government has been favored as the government would only be able to do that with a warrant and reason for the warrant, to protect our natural rights. Locke’s idea of government reflects our police department regulations also; to protect our natural rights police have limited power, as they cannot do whatever they feel necessary to prevent crime. But if the police department was reflected by Hobbes idea of government the police could do whatever they felt necessary, which in today’s society could actually cause more chaos, then prevent
In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about his views of human nature and describes his vision of the ideal government which is best suited to his views.